Please call Devin Johnson of the Brylski Company to interview Chuck Morse, author of A WHIG MANIFESTO: (504) 897-6110 firstname.lastname@example.org
Does Wisconsin prove the nation is ready for a re-assertion of the rights of the people?
Do veterans returning to a nation torn apart by the two-party system in a world where their buddies have died promoting democratic freedom find a third party their answer to navigating the American political system?
Yes, says political commentator and author Chuck Morse.
“The Modern Whig Party views the 21st Century as the ‘Century of Sovereignty’,” said Chuck Morse, author of The Whig Manifesto.
“Internationally, we’re seeing organic movements of citizens and governments asserting their right to political independence,” he said.
“The Arab Spring represents the yearning for democracy; and a rejection by the Arabs of the old globalist principles of Jihad and Baath Socialism.
African nations, after having endured corrupt and oppressive control by European influenced socialists, are now emerging as states with free markets; and even in Europe – the birthplace of Nazism and Communism, world order movements that were defeated with considerable American sacrifice – rumblings against international governance are gaining traction as nations seek to insulate themselves from financial catastrophes in Spain and Greece.“
Having witnessed many of these trends, America’s returning war vets, who founded the "Modern Whig Party" are aligning themselves with others in the U.S. who believe that, besides religion, national sovereignty is the most enduring institution known to human history, Morse asserts.
“These expressions of national sovereignty are at the very heart of the Modern Whig Party,” said Mr. Morse, “they exemplify the core principles our nation was founded upon and that American service men and women fight to protect: representative government, economic nationalism, and institutions that foster freedom and sovereignty.”
But there are also global movements that run counter to this international groundswell towards national self-determination. Negotiations have been opened in Rio de Janeiro, a conference to establish an international EPA. A new treaty is being suggested by Russia and China to regulate the Internet under United Nations auspices. U.S. Senators John Kerry and Chuck Lugar authored a bill that would ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, but decided to shelve debate until after the November elections to avoid any potential political fallout.
“These treaties are an expression of what I hope is the last gasp of an old and regressive idea, the idea of one world government. Under present circumstances, Congress should re-consider passing the 1950's era Bricker Amendment which would protect the Constitution, and American National Sovereignty from the insidious influence of sovereignty corroding international treaties," Morse said. "Other nations of the world who care about their own freedom should do a version of the same.”
Modern Whigs believe there is a role for the United Nations in the world, but that role would be as a neutral office to help resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise between nations by diplomacy. Mr. Morse suggests that the UN develop a standard of membership based on human rights adherence and that the UN revise all of its authoritarian documents and conventions, replacing them with those that foster the sovereignty of nations.
“The inscrutable nation-state has survived from time immemorial because sovereignty reflects the best elements of human nature. The sovereignty of states provides a natural global system of checks and balances, fostering institutions built upon the principles of self-determination, promote free will, and preserve the right of the individual and family to determine their own destiny. By getting back to our raison-detre, the promotion of independence, America would naturally do the same,” he said.
Devin Johnson, (504) 897-6110
Questions for Discussion:
1. What is the principle of National Sovereignty?
2. Is advocating National Sovereignty a dangerous promotion of nationalism?
3. Do states rights advocates represent a dangerous trend in terms of Civil Rights?
4. How can nation-states address international problems such as over-population and environmental abuse without the new world groups?